|
Ellis--- I'm not sure what you mean by across-the-board exemptions.
If laws like RFRA, they are illegitimate, but if they are tailored to particular
practices, and the public good does not suffer from the exemption, I think they
are crucial to the proper balance of liberty and order. The one thing a
society cannot do is wish away the intense power of religious belief in people's
lives, whether that government is the Soviet Union when it tried unsuccessfully
to destroy the Orthodox Church, China now trying to suppress Falun Gong and
Christianity, or our country. Religion is a given part of human existence,
and deserves to be given as much latitude as possible. Thus, the question
is not whether, but where to draw the line on exemptions. A mandatory
exemption system is inimical to the public good, especially those who are most
vulnerable. But an exemption that harms others is contrary to the scheme
of ordered liberty the Constitution constructs.
Marci
But why should they be granted across-the-board exemptions? It won't do to say that the First Amendment requires such, because that is the issue. Why should the First Amendment be interpreted to require such? |
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
